Pats Fans For Truth Fact Sheet (collect facts) [merged]

[IcyPatriot]

What exactly is the point of this thread? I believe the nature of it to be very sincere and the effort outstanding. But what exactly are the facts going to do? The team wants to move on and this is only going to keep everything from not moving on.

If someone does not want help and does not need or ask for help
then what exactly is the point? To prove to the ignorant out there
facts that they don't care to hear?

Has anyone here taken the time to learn if Mangini was indeed the rat?
if the facts proved he was not the rat would it change anyones opinion of him?

Sorry ... I just don't get it and I don't think it needs to be found.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

What exactly is the point of this thread?

FBN, thanks for the benefit of the doubt, in terms of the thread being well intentioned, and the ad-hoc nascent group being well intentioned, by extension.

Again, the point is to boil down information into fact sheets, to make information available to members of the media, easily, without laborious searching. It's a modest first goal, which is probably a good idea as far as first goals go.

We're getting the "low-hanging fruit": that is, what Patsfans members have run across during their attention to this ongoing circus.

I'm trying to add as I go from other publicly available sources. Any links you have are welcome. If you do not see the point, I can respect that too. Thanks for dropping by.

I've done my share of "Jeez is this still not over?" complaining here. But I feel, much as many others here do, that media balance is in order. Our first goal is to provide a few simple tools to those with a use for them.

Evidently, some in the media listen when you respond. If I write a story, facts to the contrary of that story equal another story. That's column inches I did not work for. That's "balance" for free. Sometimes it will be wanted; other times (particularly in the opinions pieces,) it will not be.

Chip in if you want. Otherwise, hey, it's my time-burn, not yours!

PFnV

 

[Koma]

I apologize if this was already mentioned, but one minor part of this story which some media members and fans get incorrect is the date of the Ray Anderson memo. The memo was from September 6, 2006, not 2007.

I wasn't able to find a link to the actual memo (though I am sure it is out there somewhere), but this article, among others mentions the date:

http://www.boston.com/sports/footba...07/09/14/big_fines_for_belichick_team/?page=2

I only bring this up because some people spin the story so that it appears Belichick was just told the rules about taping and then blew them off. For example, the 9/14/07 ESPN article about the fines just mentions "Sept 6," with leads to the assumption that it was a very recent memo.

(I'm not mentioning the actual date of the memo to somehow justify or minimize the violation, but rather to clarify a small part of the story.)

 

[pao]

PFnV

Wow! This sounds like a massive undertaking. You, and those that are helping you, are TRUE fans of the Patriots (not that those that aren't helping aren't true fans but, obviously, those that are must really love their team, and believe in them, to put this much effort into your project). I volunteer for troll duty if you guys need one (although I don't consider myself to be REAL troll, I have exhibited trollish behavior in moments of peak). There is a limit to the time I could spend helping out but I'd be willing to offer an opinion now and again, by PM or post, whatever. Good luck!

pao

edit: Another guy who might be able to help you in this regard is JCDavey. He's a Charger fan too and posts here from time to time. Dude has lot's of time and he claims he's unbiased.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

JCDavey might be a good guy to bring in to get that "troller's eye" on the documents. Thanks for the link on the memo date... it's one of the most often mis-represented points in the "history", since the memo came prior to many of the examples of behavior that was pretty much the same as the Pats engaged in, but on the part of other teams.

PFnV

 

[richpats]

Since I've been called a troll for pointing out that Belichick broke a rule and lost 3 consecutive years in the playoffs, I'd be happy to look over the final product.

 

[upstater1]

Since I've been called a troll for pointing out that Belichick broke a rule and lost 3 consecutive years in the playoffs, I'd be happy to look over the final product.

Gawd, I thought you were only on his case for Spygate!

You're nailing him now for losing too?!!!

 

[PatriotsReign]

Since I've been called a troll for pointing out that Belichick broke a rule and lost 3 consecutive years in the playoffs, I'd be happy to look over the final product.

You're coming around richpats...nice to see. You're not a troll unless you purposefully & consistently surf pro-BB threads looking for a debate. Otherwise, you're another Pats fan with a point of view.

Even if you are glass half-empty guy. I guess he could have stepped in to play O-line in the SB to stop the leaking.

 

[richpats]

Gawd, I thought you were only on his case for Spygate!

You're nailing him now for losing too?!!!

I see the attitude of some fans now. If I "point out" something negative about Belichick, then I am "nailing" him.

 

[richpats]

Even if you are glass half-empty guy. I guess he could have stepped in to play O-line in the SB to stop the leaking.

I was concerned (like others) that he was really into the defensive playcalling and adjustments during the SB. I'm wondering if it took away from making offensive adjustments.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Or maybe have paid attention while the offense was on the field, I dunno.

Please list for me all the coaches who have won 3 super bowls in 8 years, made the playoffs in 7 of those 8 years and have played in 4 out of 8 SB's?

I'll be waiting for your list.

Again, if you do try to start another BB debate, then you will be proving your trollism. If there were 5 threads supporting BB and you attempted to start debates in all 5, that would be trolling.

Especially in a thread such as this where NO ONE has tried to debate ANYTHING....except you!

 

[PatriotsReign]

I was concerned (like others) that he was really into the defensive playcalling and adjustments during the SB. I'm wondering if it took away from making offensive adjustments.

You pulled a PatriotReign and changed your post....

Whatever, it's over...It sucks, but it can't be changed.

Although he has a streak of defiance, Belichik is humble enough to thoroughly review his performance this year and make the necessary corrections.

I have complete confidence in the changes he'll make to the roster...how can I not?

This debate is over for me...the last word is yours.

 

[upstater1]

I see the attitude of some fans now. If I "point out" something negative about Belichick, then I am "nailing" him.

If a guy gets us to 4 Super Bowls in seven years, and wins three of them, and also gets us to 5 championship games in that time, and wins four of them, I do think it's ridiculous to criticize him for "losing."

That's like making fun of Hugh Hefner on the night he doesn't get laid with a Playboy girl.

 

[richpats]

Please list for me all the coaches who have won 3 super bowls in 8 years, made the playoffs in 7 of those 8 years and have played in 4 out of 8 SB's?

I'll be waiting for your list.

Again, if you do try to start another BB debate, then you will be proving your trollism.

Bill Belichick
Chuck Noll

There's your list - surprised to find another name on it?

Sheesh, I see no criticism of BB is allowed here, and those fans willing to say something that doesn't glorify Belichick are really trolls - what a country we live in.

EDIT: I doubt I've heard the last word from you about this.

 

[richpats]

If a guy gets us to 4 Super Bowls in seven years, and wins three of them, and also gets us to 5 championship games in that time, and wins four of them, I do think it's ridiculous to criticize him for "losing."

That's like making fun of Hugh Hefner on the night he doesn't get laid with a Playboy girl.

Bill Belichick has lost 3 consecutive years in the playoffs.

Is that criticism or simply just a fact?

 

[BPF]

An artcile written today on Specter's conflict of interest:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/dave_zirin/02/27/spygate/index.html

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Good link! As the cycle turns ...

 

[JoeSixPat]

An artcile written today on Specter's conflict of interest:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/dave_zirin/02/27/spygate/index.html

How hilarious would it be if SPECTER winds up being the subject of an investigation given the $500,000 he took from Comcast!

 

[fgssand]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/dr_z/09/13/cheating/index.html?eref=si_nfl


http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/20070914-9999-1s14mediacol.html

 

[JoeSixPat]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/dr_z/09/13/cheating/index.html?eref=si_nfl


http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/20070914-9999-1s14mediacol.html

Ahhh - this helps clarify things... so basically its not that Belichick allegedly cheated by taping coaches signals. That's been going on for 40 or 50 years. Everyone in the NFL knows it - though the vast majority of ignorant fans and Senators prefer to stick their heads in the sand about that.

Belichick's true crime was his "arrogance" of taking a matter-of-fact approach to taping signals given the fact that the NFL has been looking the other way for 50 years.

How dare he!